Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 7:00 amThe question is valid and morality is objective, but your thought experiment is self-defeating.
When I say "Morality is objective", I am saying "If all minds ceased to exist, morality would continue to exist". Thus, if you think the latter is silly, you also think the former is silly.

But now you're also adding that it's self-defeating.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 12:08 amOntology. Epistemology. Is just a way to confuse yourself even further.
I am merely informing everyone what I mean when I say "Morality is objective".
Are minds ontological? They sure are! Everything that exists is ontological.
I have absolutely no idea what it means to say that minds are ontological.

If all it means is that minds exist, then yes, they are ontological, i.e. existent.
But if objective morality exists only in ontological minds and ontological minds disappear - is morality still objective?
What do you mean by "objective morality"?

As I already told you, when I speak of "objective morality", I am talking about morality that would continue to exist even if all minds ceased to exist. As such, objective morality, in my sense of the term, cannot exist inside minds. Why? Because if X exists inside minds, then by removing all minds, you also remove everything inside them, which also means, you remove X.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 12:08 amIn the ontological sense, to say that a thing is "objective" is to say that it is mind-independent, i.e. that it exists independently of minds. That, in turn, can mean one of the following:
Q.E.D the confusion has already settled indeed.

You appear to be saying that minds are NOT objective e.g that your mind doesn't exist ontologically.

What a peculiar mindset.
Minds do exist. Where exactly did you get the idea that I am saying, explicitly or implicitly, that minds do not exist? What you're responding to is merely a definition of the term "objective" as I use it.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 12:08 amSure, if minds ceased to exist, there would be no mind to ask questions and no mind to care about answers.

But how exactly is that relevant to the topic at hand?
How is it not relevant?!?

Your thought experiment entails a scenario where minds cease to exist. So your mind imagines its own non-existence? How? As your mind disappears - the thought experiment disappears with it!

Your conception of "objectivity" as mind-independence is a non-starter.
Yes, my mind is imagining its non-existence. My mind does not have to cease to exist in order to imagine its non-existence.
Sure. But the moment you imagine a universe without your mind in it - you are talking about some other, imaginary universe, not this universe.

This universe has your mind in it. The one you are talking about doesn't.
We're discussing what's possible in this universe. The claim that I am making is that it's impossible for morality to cease to exist at all ( let alone when a set of conditions are met, e.g. when all minds are removed from existence. )

As I said in the OP, the universe isn't merely defined by what's actual ( i.e. what was, what is and what will be. ) It's also defined by what's possible within it and what's not.
I am using them exactly as you are using them. If minds disappear - laws disappear.
So when minds disappear, it becomes possible for things to not be identical to themselves?
That's not my position.

I agree with the first part (if minds ceased to exist morality would also cease to exist - yes.)
That's the only part, actually.
But I disagree with the premise that the objectivity of morality requires mind-independence.
I also disagree with the insinuation that minds; and the contents thereof are not objective.
It's a definitional premise. It merely states how I'm using the term "objective" within the context of this thread. When I say "objective", I don't mean "existent". I mean "mind-independent". And by "mind-independent", I mean "that which would continue to exist if all minds were removed from existence".

In this sense, minds aren't objective. They aren't mind-independent. They wouldn't continue to exist if all minds ceased to exist. But note that, to say that minds aren't objective -- in this sense of the word, of course -- isn't to say that they aren't existent.

Similarly, to say that morality isn't objective in this sense of the word isn't to say that morality isn't objective in some other sense of the word ( e.g. in the sense of being existent. )
That's just the usual philosophical mental muddle.
You're merely misunderstanding what I'm saying.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Post by Skepdick »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:05 pm When I say "Morality is objective", I am saying "If all minds ceased to exist, morality would continue to exist". Thus, if you think the latter is silly, you also think the former is silly.
No. I think that only the former is silly. The latter is meaningless.

If all minds cease to exist then what does it mean for anything to "exist"?
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:05 pm I am merely informing everyone what I mean when I say "Morality is objective".
I understand what you are trying to do, but I am informing you that you are failing to do it.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:05 pm I have absolutely no idea what it means to say that minds are ontological.

If all it means is that minds exist, then yes, they are ontological, i.e. existent.
If minds exist, and minds are ontological then the objective/subjective distinction ceases to be meaningful - morality simply exists objectively even if morality is mind-dependent.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:05 pm What do you mean by "objective morality"?
I mean the objectivity of morality!

Things like the necessary moral fact that should humans become extinct objectively speaking that would be the worst possible things that could happen for humanity.

You are apparently imagining a world without us and you don't think that's immoral ?!? What's wrong with you?

Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:05 pm As I already told you, when I speak of "objective morality", I am talking about morality that would continue to exist even if all minds ceased to exist.
Who would assert its existence?
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:05 pm As such, objective morality, in my sense of the term, cannot exist inside minds. Why? Because if X exists inside minds, then by removing all minds, you also remove everything inside them, which also means, you remove X.
OK, so where does it exist then? It's not in minds - fine. Where is it?

If you don't think the extinction of all humans is the most immoral thing imaginable for humanity then what use is your objective morality anyway?
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:05 pm Minds do exist. Where exactly did you get the idea that I am saying, explicitly or implicitly, that minds do not exist? What you're responding to is merely a definition of the term "objective" as I use it.
I am getting this "peculiar idea" from your decoupling of morality from human existence.

It's some silly conception completely disconnected from natural selection and avoiding human extinction.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:05 pm Yes, my mind is imagining its non-existence. My mind does not have to cease to exist in order to imagine its non-existence.
Really? So you must be imagining the non-existence of imagination. You are imagining your own non-existence.

Tell us more about it. What is it like? From whose perspective are you experiencing the imaginary world without minds?
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:05 pm We're discussing what's possible in this universe.
Key word "this" universe. Any universe without us in it is not this universe. That violates the anthropic principle.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:05 pm The claim that I am making is that it's impossible for morality to cease to exist at all ( let alone when a set of conditions are met, e.g. when all minds are removed from existence. )
And I am saying that it's absolutely senseless to speak about the non-existence of minds because nobody knows what that's like.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:05 pm As I said in the OP, the universe isn't merely defined by what's actual ( i.e. what was, what is and what will be. ) It's also defined by what's possible within it and what's not.
One of the things that are most certainly impossible is to speak about possibilities in the same breath you are attempting to imagine the non-existence of minds.

Who would be imagining such alternative timelines/histories?
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:05 pm So when minds disappear, it becomes possible for things to not be identical to themselves?
A thing being identical to itself is a judgment made about a thing by a mind. It's a rule about how minds use language, not a factual statement about the thing being spoken about.

Without minds who or what would be making such assertions? Or contrary assertions? Or any assertions at all?
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:05 pm It's a definitional premise. It merely states how I'm using the term "objective" within the context of this thread. When I say "objective", I don't mean "existent". I mean "mind-independent". And by "mind-independent", I mean "that which would continue to exist if all minds were removed from existence".
Yes. I heard you the first time, but you missed the damn point.

Everything would cease too "exist" once minds cease to exist because only minds assert the (non)existence of things.

Things just are. However they are.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:05 pm In this sense, minds aren't objective. They aren't mind-independent. They wouldn't continue to exist if all minds ceased to exist. But note that, to say that minds aren't objective -- in this sense of the word, of course -- isn't to say that they aren't existent.
Again. Talk of existence is all mentalist talk.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:05 pm Similarly, to say that morality isn't objective in this sense of the word isn't to say that morality isn't objective in some other sense of the word ( e.g. in the sense of being existent.
This is soooo damn peculiar. You are framing the entire thing about the use and meaning of words. But what does anything mean without minds around to ascribe it meaning?

What does it mean for anything to exist if minds don't exist?!? It means nothing!
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:05 pm You're merely misunderstanding what I'm saying.
Yes. I struggle with the comprehension of self-defeating and incoherent expressions.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Post by popeye1945 »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 1:24 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 10:06 pmMorality is not a set of immutable laws this should be made obvious by the changes in the moralities of populations over time.
If you define the word "morality" to mean something like "a set of moral beliefs held by someone" or "a set of laws someone is obeying", then yes, morality is a mutable thing.
Beliefs are mutable things. They can change. In fact, they change all the time. You believe one thing one day and then another thing another day. You believe all sorts of things when you're young. You believe that Santa Claus is real, for example. (That's what I'm told American kids do. I never held that belief myself. ) When you grow up, you replace those beliefs with different ones. And so on.
You are engaged in something here quite unnatural; you are letting the printed world define reality for you, and there is an old saying, the word is not the thing. All meaning, ALL, meaning, is totally dependent upon a biological subject. There is the old saying of things immutable, death, taxes--------- tongue in cheek, and the laws of physics. On the subject of an individual dying of course as Schopenhauer stated, when the individual closes his eyes in death a world ceases to be, but life is a process and does not depend upon the individual. The essence of life renews itself and is everywhere around you. You do not understand the relation between subject and object and their mutual dependence, take one away and the other ceases to be. So, anything whatsoever you could consider objective ceases to be in the absence of a conscious subject and in the absence of the world as object consciousness ceases to be. The laws of physics probably are immutable, but perhaps within a certain galactic time frame, but they would be totally meaningless in the absence of consciousness to know them.

The same goes for a set of laws that someone is obeying. Today, you might be obeying a law that says "Don't eat". But tomorrow, you might be obeying a law that says "Eat three times a day".
However, if you define the word "morality" to mean something like "a set of moral truths" or "a set of laws someone should obey", then no, morality is not a mutable thing.
Do you agree that truth is immutable? Do you agree that what is true on one day is true on all days? If so, then you should also agree that moral truths are immutable. If it is true today that you should eat three times a day every day then it is true on all days.
And the same goes for laws that one ought to obey. If you ought to obey the law that says "Eat 3 times a day" each day, then you ought to obey it each day. That sort of thing has no capacity to change. [/quote]

No, I do not believe truth is immutable. If there is one constant in our reality it is that of change. As I have stated above, I believe all meanings are biologically dependent, dependent upon experience/knowledge and meaning. It is through the experience of the biological subject that meaning is obtained; from its experiences, it learns to move more safely in the world. It is a conscious subject that then bestows those biological meanings upon a meaningless world. I will state it again, in the absence of a conscious subject the world is utterly meaningless. You do appreciate that the only way we come to know the world is on a subjective level. The meanings gained are not of the source but how the source affects on one's biology thus apparent reality is a biological readout, a biological simulation. I know it seems very much a stretch, but with physicist now telling us it's all energy, I can resist the conclusion. Just as biology is plastic/mutable, so to its experiences of reality, if you wish to experience an alternate reality, you just need to alter your biology.

And if something is immutable, the following applies:

1) it cannot change

2) if it exists, it cannot cease to exist

3) if it exists, and if minds cease to exist, it won't cease to exist

4) it cannot exist within mutable things

5) since minds are mutable, and since immutable things cannot exist within mutable things, it cannot exist within minds (and therefore, it does not)
[/quote]

Again, we only know the world on a subjective level, it is the only way we know the world. Biological subjects are the source of all meanings. There is nothing in the world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to a conscious subject. If something could exist in the absence of a conscious subject, it is impossible to know, we cannot escape our subjectivity.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 4:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:12 amWe have discussed this point re Objectivity but you just ignored what I wrote.
Since this is a philosophical forum, so we start with what is Philosophical Objectivity;
  • In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
    A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Note "a" which means ONE person which I would extend to a loose mob of people in an unorganized manner.
How can you ignore the above?

I also mentioned to you there are TWO sense of what is objectivity;
viewtopic.php?t=39326
1. FSK-ed Objectivity, e.g. Science
2. P-realist mind-independent objectivity.
Words often have more than one meaning. The word "objective" is no exception. You're aware of that yourself.

In the epistemological sense, the word "objective" can be one of the following things:

1) an adjective that specifies that the truth value of a proposition is not necessarily the same as what people think its truth value is

2) an adjective that specifies that a belief is a product of a judgment that wasn't corrupted by subjective factors ( e.g. personal preferences )

In the above quote, you seem to be using the word "objective" in the second sense.

However, the title of this thread, as well as the opening post, do not use the word "objective" that way. Instead, they use it in the ontological sense. "Morality is objective" is to be interpreted to mean "Morality would continue to exist even if all minds ceased to exist". That's what we're talking about here. That's the subject of this thread.
My point is your OP is not sound nor realistic.

Your use of 'proposition' is illusory, i.e. it does not exist as real.

When I use 'proposition' it meant any hypothesis or thesis that is proposed for consideration.
proposition = a statement or assertion that expresses a judgement or opinion.

Your 'what is objectivity' in is your own invention which is not recognized within philosophy. Show me supporting references to support your point.

I have presented what is objectivity as generally accepted within philosophy;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
There are two versions of such objectivity, i.e.

1. FSK-ed Objectivity as in scientific objectivity - not mind-independent
2. P-realist Objectivity - mind-independent

Your objectivity based on primitive philosophical realism is illusory.
I have argued 2 is illusory,
Why Philosophical Realism is illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
as such Objectivity [ontological] is illusory.
Roughly speaking, your argument against the existence of mind-independent things is as following:

1) There exists a time gap. By "time gap" you mean "a temporal distance between the moment the light hits one's retina and the moment it reflects off of physical objects or is emitted".

2) Time gap makes it impossible for us to know what's out there.

3) Therefore, what's out there does not exist.

I agree with ( 1 ). I disagree with ( 2 ). And I also disagree that ( 3 ) follows from ( 1 ) and ( 2 ).
I stated there is a REALITY-GAP represented by time [temporal] and distance [physical].

I stated because of the REALITY-GAP [based on Philosophical Realism] it is impossible for us to realize [note this] what is the real thing out there which is supposedly absolutely independent of the mind.
You are merely relying on speculation and faith [not proofs] there are absolutely mind-independent objective things out there.
Therefore, based on the ideology of Philosophical Realism, the supposedly mind-independent thing do not exists as real out there; what is claimed as real it is an illusory thing.

Note, as an anti-philosophical-realist, I do believe there are things existing externally out there, but ultimately they are not absolutely mind-independent.

The supposed Ontological Objectivity is merely based on ONE individual belief or merely individual[s] assumptions and hearsays without proof at all.
I presented a proof in the opening post. I suggest that you read it.

1) I explained what the word "law" means.

2) I explained what it means to say that a law exists and what it means to say that it does not exist.

3) I mentioned a number of laws that everyone believes exist ( e.g. "A = A" and "2 + 2 = 4". )

4) I explained the difference between mutable and immutable things ( and by extension, mutable and immutable laws. )

5) I argued that, since immutable things cannot change, they cannot cease to exist. As such, if minds ceased to exist, immutable things that existed up to that point wouldn't cease to exist.

6) I argued that, since "A = A" and "2 + 2 = 4" are immutable laws, they do not merely exist, they also exist independently of minds, i.e. they would continue to exist even if all minds ceased to exist.

7) Therefore, at least some mind-independent things exist.

Of course, this wasn't the point of the OP. The point of the OP was to show that morality is mind-independent. But it ended up being part of it.
"A = A" is a law of logic which is agreed [minds involved] in consensus by classical binary logicians but not by modern logicians who accept fuzzy logic.
Thus, "A=A" is only valid for those who accept the 'agreed Laws of Classical Logic'.
Since the grounds to "A=A" emerged from consensus [minds], this Law of Logic, i.e. "A=A" cannot be absolutely mind independent.

Btw, all the Laws of Classical Logic emerged from human biology via the evolutionary processes. Note;

The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology
William S. Cooper
amazon
  • "The formal systems of logic have ordinarily been regarded as independent of biology, but recent developments in evolutionary theory suggest that biology and logic may be intimately interrelated.
    In this book, William S. Cooper outlines a theory of rationality in which logical law emerges as an intrinsic aspect of evolutionary biology.

    He examines the connections between logic and evolutionary biology and illustrates how logical rules are derived directly from evolutionary principles,
    and therefore, have no independent status of their own.

    This biological perspective on logic, though at present unorthodox, could change traditional ideas about the reasoning process."
It is the same for "2+2=4" i.e. it has an evolutionary and adapted_ness basis traceable to biology.

Therefore "A=A" and "2+2=4" CANNOT exist absolutely independent of minds.

If there are no human minds, there is no "A=A" and "2+2=4".

Note, at present national currencies are not represented by physical gold.
What is modern currencies which is VERY useful and has values is dependent on the consensus beliefs of a group of minds.
If there are no humans, there is no currencies in existence, no US Dollars or UK Pounds.

You need a paradigm shift in your thinking to understand greater refine truths.
Your clinging to your current dogmatic philosophical thinking is based on proto, primal, relatively crude reasonings.
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 9:20 amI have been arguing on the basis of what you termed as 'highest goal' but 'highest goal' is a problematic term.
What's so problematic about it?
I have been stating this long time ago;
1. But empirically wise, it is very evident, ALL humans are programmed to survive as long as possible till the inevitable as embedded in our DNA, genes, brain and body.
In other words, you're saying that the highest goal of every human being is to live as long as possible.

I agree.
5. You wrote;
Magnus Anderson wrote:You pursue this goal unconditionally in the sense that you don't spend a minute thinking about whether you should pursue it or not.

This why I have been claiming, morality-proper is not about right or wrong, i.e. deciding what is right or wrong to act.
Only the highest goal is pursued unconditionally. All other goals, i.e. all sub-goals, are pursued conditionally.

You pursue your highest goal without questioning whether it's right or wrong to pursue it. In fact, it makes no sense to do so, since it isn't subordinated to any other goal.

You pursue all of your other goals, i.e. all of your sub-goals, because you think they will help you attain your highest goal. As soon as you change your mind, and realize that a sub-goal won't help you attain your highest goal, you stop pursuing it, even if it's in your DNA.
Magnus Anderson wrote:It's not something you choose, it's given to you.
It's probably in your DNA.
The main goal and sub-goals are given to all humans embedded within the DNA, genes, brain, body.
The above moral goals are subsequently expressed as a neural algorithm in the brain.
These moral goals [main and sub-] are represented by physical neural correlates, thus they are factual and it is possible to verify and justify them empirically via the human-based science-biology FSK as objective scientific facts.
Let's say that you inherited the idea that you should pursue sub-goal X in situation S.

It's in your DNA.

Does that mean it's moral to pursue sub-goal X in situation S?

Not necessarily.

It's moral to do so if and only if pursuing sub-goal X in situation S will get you closer to attaining your highest goal than pursuing any other sub-goal.

DNA is not an authority on what's moral and what's not. Reality is. DNA can only transfer beliefs from one generation to another. And I highly doubt it that 1) human DNA contains all the relevant ideas in the world, and that 2) human DNA contains only true ideas.

Morality isn't something within your DNA. Your DNA can carry within itself moral beliefs that you may or may not choose to adopt. But morality is not a set of beliefs. Morality is a set of laws of the form "Under circumstances C, the best decision for person P is D". And these are immutable laws, i.e. laws that cannot change. As such, they are laws that wouldn't cease to exist if all minds ceased to exist. They are, in other words, mind-independent laws.
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 12:52 pmMy point is that, pending evidence, belief in the the existence of minds, or any other abstract or non-physical things, is irrational. So mind-independence is a useless criterion for objectivity.
You don't think there's evidence that minds exist? I beg to differ.

On the other hand, does it really matter? Do you believe in the existence of brains? If so, you can substitute the word "mind" with the word "brain". For example, when I say "mind-independence", you should read it as "brain-independence".
Not so. Principles are quite different from laws. Again, you want to redefine words to construct your model.
How exactly?

For example, Google says that one of the meanings of the word "principle" is "a rule or belief governing one's behaviour". Google also says the term "law" is often used to mean "an individual rule as part of a system of law" and "a rule defining correct procedure or behaviour in a sport".

How about Merriam Webster? They offer following definitions of the term "principle":

1) a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption

2) a rule or code of conduct

3) the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial device

I'd say that, in the general sense, the terms "law", "rule" and "principle" mean one and the same thing. They all mean "a limit on what's possible".
And this description of morality doesn't mention a person's 'highest goal' - which has no moral significance anyway.
They speak of "good" and "bad" behavior. The word "good" is another word for "useful" which means "able to be used to achieve certain end". "Good" and "bad" really only make sense in relation to a goal.
Magnus Anderson wrote:Finally, to say that a behavior is right ( or good ) for person P is to say that it would help that person P get closer to attaining his highest goal compared to all other competing behaviors. Things are good or bad, right or wrong, only in relation to a goal.
Peter Holmes wrote:This is, very explicitly, not what moral objectivism means. If there are so-called moral facts, then people's goals - highest or not - are irrelevant. That's what I mean by saying that goal-consistency does not confer moral objectivity. Consider the following.

Premise: Our highest goal is white supremacy.
Conclusion: Therefore, it's morally right for us to subjugate non-white people.

Given your explanation of moral goodness or rightness - consistency with a highest goal - this is a valid argument. The fact that most of us, including most moral objectivists, would dismiss this argument as morally obnoxious demonstrates the uselessness of goal-consistency as a criterion for moral conclusions.
Most people will dismiss that argument as being "morally obnoxious" because 1) no humans pursue white supremacy as their highest goal, and 2) most people aren't good at abstract thinking.

Technically, if a man's highest goal is to kill himself, then choosing to do what will end his life as soon possible is a morally correct decision. If you asked an average person what he thinks about that, he'd say "No, it's not! It's immoral to kill yourself!" but only because 1) no human in existence pursues suicide as his highest goal, 2) people, in general, have trouble thinking in hypothetical terms, and 3) people, in general, do not really understand what morality is.
It doesn't imply them either. The venerable intrusion of the mythical mind into discussion of objectivity and subjectivity is an unnecessary distraction.
If they are saying that morality is a set of laws someone is obeying, then they are talking about laws of behavior. Laws of behavior exist within minds. A mind is nothing but a set of laws that govern one's behavior. A mind is that which determines how one acts based on 1) the highest goal it pursues, and 2) its perception of the world. When they say that minds are immaterial, what they are saying is that minds aren't physical objects but laws that govern physical objects.
Thanks, but the conceptual mess informing talk of abstract or non-physical things, such as propositions - and concepts - is what we need to clean up. Quoting a mistake does nothing to rectify it.

In short, the fact that different 'token sentences' can have the same function doesn't mean there must be an abstraction that unites them. The so-called logical form of a declarative is just another declarative. And propositions have subjects and predicates, and some have truth-value - so they're just like declaratives. The myth of propositions is potent and pervasive in philosophy.
Alright, how about this. When we say "I believe X", we're saying that a portion of reality exists in certain state. Do you agree with that?
Thanks, but we need to question these definitions. And this one is patently false. If I believe the sky is blue, that has nothing to do with the proposition/sentence 'the sky is blue'. That is to mistake what we say about things for the way things are - as does the JTB truth condition: S knows that p iff p is true. (Iow, the confusion is institutional.)
You seem to be working with a correspondence theory of truth: a proposition refers to a portion of reality. But such a theory is demonstrably incorrect. And since what we're actually talking about is factual assertions, they can be true or false. So I think your analysis is muddled in several ways.
The difference between the two of us seems to be a massive one. What that means is that it will take quite a bit of time to resolve it. I suggest we take it one step at a time.
Two problems. 1 The words ought to and should can be used non-morally, so "John ought to do X" need have no moral meaning. And "the best thing" similarly need have no moral meaning.
I'd say that every such statement has a moral meaning. I can, however, agree that some of those statements aren't about social morality, i.e. what's the right way to interact with other living beings.
2 Your supposedly equivalent 'is' assertion still expresses a matter of opinion, which is subjective. It doesn't describe the way a portion of reality is - it asserts the way it ought to be.
I don't think it's a matter of opinion whether or not eating food will bring you closer to attaining your highest goal, which is to live as long as possible, than not eating food.
I disagree with your gloss on the word law.

Magnus, there are many issues on which we disagree here. If you want to continue, can I suggest we narrow it down to one at a time - for example, the existence and nature of propositions - or the nature of goals and goal-consistency?

But I'm happy to leave it here, if you think it wouldn't be fruitful to continue.
We should definitely narrow it down. But I'm not sure if we should be doing it here in this thread. Perhaps we should start a separate thread instead.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Post by Peter Holmes »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:52 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 12:52 pmMy point is that, pending evidence, belief in the the existence of minds, or any other abstract or non-physical things, is irrational. So mind-independence is a useless criterion for objectivity.
You don't think there's evidence that minds exist? I beg to differ.

On the other hand, does it really matter? Do you believe in the existence of brains? If so, you can substitute the word "mind" with the word "brain". For example, when I say "mind-independence", you should read it as "brain-independence".
Not so. Principles are quite different from laws. Again, you want to redefine words to construct your model.
How exactly?

For example, Google says that one of the meanings of the word "principle" is "a rule or belief governing one's behaviour". Google also says the term "law" is often used to mean "an individual rule as part of a system of law" and "a rule defining correct procedure or behaviour in a sport".

How about Merriam Webster? They offer following definitions of the term "principle":

1) a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption

2) a rule or code of conduct

3) the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial device

I'd say that, in the general sense, the terms "law", "rule" and "principle" mean one and the same thing. They all mean "a limit on what's possible".
And this description of morality doesn't mention a person's 'highest goal' - which has no moral significance anyway.
They speak of "good" and "bad" behavior. The word "good" is another word for "useful" which means "able to be used to achieve certain end". "Good" and "bad" really only make sense in relation to a goal.
Magnus Anderson wrote:Finally, to say that a behavior is right ( or good ) for person P is to say that it would help that person P get closer to attaining his highest goal compared to all other competing behaviors. Things are good or bad, right or wrong, only in relation to a goal.
Peter Holmes wrote:This is, very explicitly, not what moral objectivism means. If there are so-called moral facts, then people's goals - highest or not - are irrelevant. That's what I mean by saying that goal-consistency does not confer moral objectivity. Consider the following.

Premise: Our highest goal is white supremacy.
Conclusion: Therefore, it's morally right for us to subjugate non-white people.

Given your explanation of moral goodness or rightness - consistency with a highest goal - this is a valid argument. The fact that most of us, including most moral objectivists, would dismiss this argument as morally obnoxious demonstrates the uselessness of goal-consistency as a criterion for moral conclusions.
Most people will dismiss that argument as being "morally obnoxious" because 1) no humans pursue white supremacy as their highest goal, and 2) most people aren't good at abstract thinking.

Technically, if a man's highest goal is to kill himself, then choosing to do what will end his life as soon possible is a morally correct decision. If you asked an average person what he thinks about that, he'd say "No, it's not! It's immoral to kill yourself!" but only because 1) no human in existence pursues suicide as his highest goal, 2) people, in general, have trouble thinking in hypothetical terms, and 3) people, in general, do not really understand what morality is.
It doesn't imply them either. The venerable intrusion of the mythical mind into discussion of objectivity and subjectivity is an unnecessary distraction.
If they are saying that morality is a set of laws someone is obeying, then they are talking about laws of behavior. Laws of behavior exist within minds. A mind is nothing but a set of laws that govern one's behavior. A mind is that which determines how one acts based on 1) the highest goal it pursues, and 2) its perception of the world. When they say that minds are immaterial, what they are saying is that minds aren't physical objects but laws that govern physical objects.
Thanks, but the conceptual mess informing talk of abstract or non-physical things, such as propositions - and concepts - is what we need to clean up. Quoting a mistake does nothing to rectify it.

In short, the fact that different 'token sentences' can have the same function doesn't mean there must be an abstraction that unites them. The so-called logical form of a declarative is just another declarative. And propositions have subjects and predicates, and some have truth-value - so they're just like declaratives. The myth of propositions is potent and pervasive in philosophy.
Alright, how about this. When we say "I believe X", we're saying that a portion of reality exists in certain state. Do you agree with that?
Thanks, but we need to question these definitions. And this one is patently false. If I believe the sky is blue, that has nothing to do with the proposition/sentence 'the sky is blue'. That is to mistake what we say about things for the way things are - as does the JTB truth condition: S knows that p iff p is true. (Iow, the confusion is institutional.)
You seem to be working with a correspondence theory of truth: a proposition refers to a portion of reality. But such a theory is demonstrably incorrect. And since what we're actually talking about is factual assertions, they can be true or false. So I think your analysis is muddled in several ways.
The difference between the two of us seems to be a massive one. What that means is that it will take quite a bit of time to resolve it. I suggest we take it one step at a time.
Two problems. 1 The words ought to and should can be used non-morally, so "John ought to do X" need have no moral meaning. And "the best thing" similarly need have no moral meaning.
I'd say that every such statement has a moral meaning. I can, however, agree that some of those statements aren't about social morality, i.e. what's the right way to interact with other living beings.
2 Your supposedly equivalent 'is' assertion still expresses a matter of opinion, which is subjective. It doesn't describe the way a portion of reality is - it asserts the way it ought to be.
I don't think it's a matter of opinion whether or not eating food will bring you closer to attaining your highest goal, which is to live as long as possible, than not eating food.
I disagree with your gloss on the word law.

Magnus, there are many issues on which we disagree here. If you want to continue, can I suggest we narrow it down to one at a time - for example, the existence and nature of propositions - or the nature of goals and goal-consistency?

But I'm happy to leave it here, if you think it wouldn't be fruitful to continue.
We should definitely narrow it down. But I'm not sure if we should be doing it here in this thread. Perhaps we should start a separate thread instead.
Thanks, Magnus. I find I disagree with so much of what you say - almost every detail of your 'model' - that I wouldn't find it fruitful to take it all apart and show why. But thanks anyway.
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 8:15 pmThanks, Magnus. I find I disagree with so much of what you say - almost every detail of your 'model' - that I wouldn't find it fruitful to take it all apart and show why. But thanks anyway.
I think you should ignore everything I said and just define the term "morality". If you want to stick to the Google definition that you provided, you should define the terms "principle" and "good".
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 5:41 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 9:20 amI have been arguing on the basis of what you termed as 'highest goal' but 'highest goal' is a problematic term.
What's so problematic about it?
I have been stating this long time ago;
1. But empirically wise, it is very evident, ALL humans are programmed to survive as long as possible till the inevitable as embedded in our DNA, genes, brain and body.
In other words, you're saying that the highest goal of every human being is to live as long as possible.

I agree.
I would not use the term "highest" as that can implied ultimate, final, etc.
I would rather stick with, generally,
1. But empirically wise, it is very evident, ALL humans are programmed to survive as long as possible till the inevitable as embedded in our DNA, genes, brain and body.
As such all humans must live in alignment with the above as programmed.

If we want to be more specific, ALL humans are programmed to reproduce the next generations which could be a "higher" goal than 1 above.
There are other considerations.

I'll stick with 1 for simplicity sake.
5. You wrote;
Magnus Anderson wrote:You pursue this goal unconditionally in the sense that you don't spend a minute thinking about whether you should pursue it or not.

This why I have been claiming, morality-proper is not about right or wrong, i.e. deciding what is right or wrong to act.
Only the highest goal is pursued unconditionally. All other goals, i.e. all sub-goals, are pursued conditionally.

You pursue your highest goal without questioning whether it's right or wrong to pursue it. In fact, it makes no sense to do so, since it isn't subordinated to any other goal.

You pursue all of your other goals, i.e. all of your sub-goals, because you think they will help you attain your highest goal. As soon as you change your mind, and realize that a sub-goal won't help you attain your highest goal, you stop pursuing it, even if it's in your DNA.
The DNA comprised a lot of specific sequences [genes].
When I refer to DNA, it mean that specific coding within the DNA that is related to 1 above and its related relevant sub-goals of the positive sense.
It is unlikely that in general, re natural selection, the DNA will be coded with any thing that is negative to goal 1.
What is negative to goal 1 may be a mutation or corrupted by epigenetics factor after birth.

Magnus Anderson wrote:It's not something you choose, it's given to you.
It's probably in your DNA.
The main goal and sub-goals are given to all humans embedded within the DNA, genes, brain, body.
The above moral goals are subsequently expressed as a neural algorithm in the brain.
These moral goals [main and sub-] are represented by physical neural correlates, thus they are factual and it is possible to verify and justify them empirically via the human-based science-biology FSK as objective scientific facts.
Let's say that you inherited the idea that you should pursue sub-goal X in situation S.

It's in your DNA.

Does that mean it's moral to pursue sub-goal X in situation S?

Not necessarily.

It's moral to do so if and only if pursuing sub-goal X in situation S will get you closer to attaining your highest goal than pursuing any other sub-goal.

DNA is not an authority on what's moral and what's not. Reality is. DNA can only transfer beliefs from one generation to another. And I highly doubt it that 1) human DNA contains all the relevant ideas in the world, and that 2) human DNA contains only true ideas.

Morality isn't something within your DNA. Your DNA can carry within itself moral beliefs that you may or may not choose to adopt. But morality is not a set of beliefs. Morality is a set of laws of the form "Under circumstances C, the best decision for person P is D". And these are immutable laws, i.e. laws that cannot change. As such, they are laws that wouldn't cease to exist if all minds ceased to exist. They are, in other words, mind-independent laws.
It is unlikely that in general, the DNA will code any thing that is negative to goal 1.
What is negative to goal 1 may be a mutation or corrupted by epigenetics factor after birth.

I see morality as an innate potential within all humans that is coded in the DNA, genes, and later facilitated by the brain and body.
It is analogical to the potential of puberty which is coded in the DNA but this coding is not activated until the child grow to older than 10 [with variations], then the RNA is coded and express as puberty stuffs and proteins. If there are problems with the RNA expressions, then we have transgender and mixed up sexuality issues.

On an overall basis, the innate morality potential in all humans at this phase of human evolution in general is not expressed and unfold in individual terms but rather in terms of the human species on a evolutionary basis.
At present the moral function potential is not sufficiently activated in the majority [say, relatively 10%], thus the majority has a great potential for evil.

I would say, that the innate morality potential are embedded with "natural-laws" of morality and in a way they can be changed if and when we can edit the human genome of humanity.
There are a set of natural moral laws which are imperative and not hypothetical [if, X, do Y].
(I am hesitant to use the term 'law' but I'll go along in this case, my preference is moral principles.)

Analogically, in alignment with 1 above, all humans are programmed to breathe imperatively, there is no hypothetical ifs for such a natural biological law.
It is the same for innate natural moral laws, there are no exceptions to such moral laws [prefer imperatives].

But of course people can choose to defy the natural biological laws and that is because there are defects in the expressions leading to suicide.
In the case of innate moral laws, some may have a conscience and intuition of the laws but choose to go against their conscience.
In other cases, many are ignorant of the natural moral laws in themselves, but their ignorance do not obviate the actual existence of those natural moral laws [grounded physically] in their brain and body.

My claim is these natural moral laws are moral facts within a human-based moral FSK; they are objective moral facts because they are represented by neural algorithms traceable to the DNA, genes, brain and body which can be verified by the human based scientific FSK.

Because the natural moral laws are grounded to the human DNA, the cease to exist if there are no humans [no human DNA].
Analogically, it is ridiculous and illogical that 'if there are no humans, human-DNA-based natural moral laws still exist"
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:05 pm When I say "Morality is objective", I am saying "If all minds ceased to exist, morality would continue to exist". Thus, if you think the latter is silly, you also think the former is silly.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 6:25 pmNo. I think that only the former is silly. The latter is meaningless.
Given that the two expressions have one and the same meaning, you are contradicting yourself.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:05 pm So when minds disappear, it becomes possible for things to not be identical to themselves?
A thing being identical to itself is a judgment made about a thing by a mind. It's a rule about how minds use language, not a factual statement about the thing being spoken about.
The first sentence is true. The second is not. "A = A" is not a rule about how minds use language ( although I understand that's a common misconception. )
What does it mean for anything to exist if minds don't exist?!? It means nothing!
The only usage of the word "exist" that matters in this discussion is my usage. And my usage is a meaningful one and it so regardless of what happens in the future. In other words, even if all minds ceased to exist, my usage of the word "exist" in the present would still be meaningful.
Yes. I struggle with the comprehension of self-defeating and incoherent expressions.
Nah, you genuinely struggle understanding what other people are saying. Either that or you're intentionally misinterpreting what others are saying so as to be able to make it look like their position can be easily criticized.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Post by Skepdick »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:32 pm
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:05 pm When I say "Morality is objective", I am saying "If all minds ceased to exist, morality would continue to exist". Thus, if you think the latter is silly, you also think the former is silly.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 6:25 pmNo. I think that only the former is silly. The latter is meaningless.
Given that the two expressions have one and the same meaning, you are contradicting yourself.
But they don't have the same meaning - so I am not contradicting myself.

Morality is objective. But it's an emergent sociological phoenomenon which depends on the existence of minds.

If minds go - morality goes with.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:32 pm The first sentence is true. The second is not. "A = A" is not a rule about how minds use language ( although I understand that's a common misconception. )
What's confusing you? "A=A" is a rule. It's called the "law" of identity. It's a law of language. Like all human laws you aren't required to obey it.
A = A, or A != A is just a choice. A choice made my a mind!

There are non-standard systems of logic in which identity doesn't universally hold and for very good empirical reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_logic
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:32 pm The only usage of the word "exist" that matters in this discussion is my usage.
You are contradicting yourself. If the only usage that matters is your usage then this is not a discussion. It's a monologue.

The point I am making is that your use of the word "exist" has a deeply baked-in pre-supposition that asserting existence without minds around to experience the thing which is said to "exist" it's meaningless to use the word "exists".

Precisely because to say that X exists is to say that X is detectable by minds.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:32 pm And my usage is a meaningful one and it so regardless of what happens in the future. In other words, even if all minds ceased to exist, my usage of the word "exist" in the present would still be meaningful.
You've missed the point entirely. The English expression "exists" is an expression made by humans. If humans cease to exist to whom would any assertions of existence be meaningful to and why?
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:32 pm Nah, you genuinely struggle understanding what other people are saying.
And you appear to be struggling with understanding WHY I am sturggling to understand what you are saying.

Because what you are saying is incoherent. It violates the anthropic principle.

If humans disappear there's nobody left to gives a shit if morality is objective.
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:32 pm Either that or you're intentionally misinterpreting what others are saying so as to be able to make it look like their position can be easily criticized.
Or... your position really is incoherent.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Jun 10, 2023 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Magnus Anderson wrote:Roughly speaking, your argument against the existence of mind-independent things is as following:

1) There exists a time gap. By "time gap" you mean "a temporal distance between the moment the light hits one's retina and the moment it reflects off of physical objects or is emitted".

2) Time gap makes it impossible for us to know what's out there.

3) Therefore, what's out there does not exist.

I agree with ( 1 ). I disagree with ( 2 ). And I also disagree that ( 3 ) follows from ( 1 ) and ( 2 ).
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:36 amI stated there is a REALITY-GAP represented by time [temporal] and distance [physical].
Yes, that's what you said. You spoke of a gap that is both temporal and spatial. You said that the temporal distance between the moment light is reflected off of a physical object and the moment it hits our retina is greater then zero ( "temporal gap". ) And you also said that the spatial distance between the point at which light is reflected off of a physical object and the point at which it hits our retina is greater than zero ( "spatial gap". )

I don't deny that such a gap exists. I merely disagree with the following two things:

1) I disagree wtih your premise that, if such a gap exists, it is impossible for us to know what's out there.

2) I disagree that your conclusion follows from your premises.
"A = A" is a law of logic which is agreed [minds involved] in consensus by classical binary logicians
Minds are involved merely in the sense that the belief that the law of identity is a real law is created by and exists within minds. As such, by removing all minds, we also remove the belief in "A = A". But it does not follow that we also remove the law of identity itself.

Here's a question for you:

What does the word "law" mean?
[..] but not by modern logicians who accept fuzzy logic.

Thus, "A=A" is only valid for those who accept the 'agreed Laws of Classical Logic'.
Any given proposition is either true or false.

To say that it is true is to say that it completely corresponds to the described portion of reality.

To say that it is false is to say that it does not completely correspond to the described portion of reality.

There is no third option here. It's one or the other. If you think there's a third option, bring it to our attention.

Note that non-binary descriptions of truth values such as "50% true" are not a third option. Why? Because each such description has an equivalent binary description. For example, the equivalent of "50% true" is "false", the equivalent of "100% true" is "true" and so on.

As I said to you in a different thread, one and the same portion of reality can be accurately described in more than one way. Truth values are no exception.

Imagine a drawer with 4 balls in it. Imagine that two of those are black and two are white. What's the truth value of the statement "All balls in that drawer are black"? It's "false" in binary language and "50% true" in non-binary centenary language. It's not either / or. Both descriptions are accurate.
Since the grounds to "A=A" emerged from consensus [minds], this Law of Logic, i.e. "A=A" cannot be absolutely mind independent.

Btw, all the Laws of Classical Logic emerged from human biology via the evolutionary processes.
You're confusing the map with the territory.

You're confusing beliefs that the law of identity is a real law with the law of identity itself.

The law of identity is NOT a belief. It is NOT a concept. It is NOT something inside your mind. It's NOT a biological entity at all.
You need a paradigm shift in your thinking to understand greater refine truths.
Your clinging to your current dogmatic philosophical thinking is based on proto, primal, relatively crude reasonings.
Try to avoid talking about other people as much as possible. Stick to discussing ideas instead.

Here's a question for you:

Do you think it's possible for a thing to be non-identical to itself?

And before you respond to that question, I just want to remind you that "A = A" is NOT saying that physical objects do not constantly change. I have to remind people of that because a lot of people have trouble understanding what "A = A" actually means.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Post by Skepdick »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 3:09 pm As such, by removing all minds, we also remove the belief in "A = A". But it does not follow that we also remove the law of identity itself.

It absolutely follows.

There are minds which believe A=A.
There are minds which believe A !=A.

If your assertion is true then removing minds won't remove either A=A or A!=A
Magnus Anderson wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 3:09 pm Do you think it's possible for a thing to be non-identical to itself?
Of course!

Code: Select all

In [1]: class NonClassical():
   ...:     def __eq__(self, other): return False
   ...:

In [2]: A = NonClassical()

In [3]: A == A
Out[3]: False
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 3:09 pm
Magnus Anderson wrote:Roughly speaking, your argument against the existence of mind-independent things is as following:

1) There exists a time gap. By "time gap" you mean "a temporal distance between the moment the light hits one's retina and the moment it reflects off of physical objects or is emitted".

2) Time gap makes it impossible for us to know what's out there.

3) Therefore, what's out there does not exist.

I agree with ( 1 ). I disagree with ( 2 ). And I also disagree that ( 3 ) follows from ( 1 ) and ( 2 ).
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:36 amI stated there is a REALITY-GAP represented by time [temporal] and distance [physical].
Yes, that's what you said. You spoke of a gap that is both temporal and spatial. You said that the temporal distance between the moment light is reflected off of a physical object and the moment it hits our retina is greater then zero ( "temporal gap". ) And you also said that the spatial distance between the point at which light is reflected off of a physical object and the point at which it hits our retina is greater than zero ( "spatial gap". )

I don't deny that such a gap exists. I merely disagree with the following two things:

1) I disagree with your premise that, if such a gap exists, it is impossible for us to know what's out there.

2) I disagree that your conclusion follows from your premises.
I meant it is impossible to know absolutely what is exactly out there.

know = be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.

The only thing you can know [as defined] are you sense-data in your brain and processed by your cognitive faculties in the brain.
Whatever is imaged in your retina is upside down and humans has to use their fallible brain to turn it up.
As such, there is no way you can know [as defined] exactly what is out there.
In many cases, the brain is vulnerable to sense illusions, e.g. seeing a snake when in reality it is a piece of rope.

In addition, such as dreams and hallucinations, your brain received images which are not from outside but triggered from within the brain.

As some neuroscientists claimed, there is no difference in the human cognitive and knowing process between a schizophrenic and a 'normal' person; as such humans are hallucinating all the time, and the question is which is the more realistic hallucination.

Because all humans are unique, e.g. fingerprints, so are their cognitive and knowing faculties.
As such if all humans were to see or know the supposedly same apple out there on the table, there would be >8 billions versions of first-person of knowing what-is-that-apple.

To be sure of what they know, humans seek consensus from others to confirm what they believe and know to be real are the same as their knowing.

This is what is happening at present with different groups affirming the truth based on consensus of what is really out there conditioned upon their specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Theists within their theistic FSK claim there is real god out there who had created the Universe.
There are many types of FSKs with their own version of they know as really real.

However, for rational people, the most reliable, credible and objective FSK at present is the scientific-FSK which can give confidence to know what is really real.
But science never claim they know what is really out there independent of human observations.

So how can you claim you can know with absolute certainty what is out there beyond the REALITY-GAP??

"A = A" is a law of logic which is agreed [minds involved] in consensus by classical binary logicians
Minds are involved merely in the sense that the belief that the law of identity is a real law is created by and exists within minds. As such, by removing all minds, we also remove the belief in "A = A". But it does not follow that we also remove the law of identity itself.

Here's a question for you:

What does the word "law" mean?
What is law?
In this case, Natural laws [not political] emerged from a specific human-based FSK.
E.g. Laws related the Physical World are from the science-Physics-FSK or the science-chemistry-FSK.
There is no way you can claim 'water is H20' without reference to the human-basaed science-chemistry FSK.
If is human based, it follows, it cannot be mind-independent or exist by itself.
[..] but not by modern logicians who accept fuzzy logic.

Thus, "A=A" is only valid for those who accept the 'agreed Laws of Classical Logic'.
Any given proposition is either true or false.
To say that it is true is to say that it completely corresponds to the described portion of reality.
To say that it is false is to say that it does not completely correspond to the described portion of reality.

There is no third option here. It's one or the other. If you think there's a third option, bring it to our attention.

Note that non-binary descriptions of truth values such as "50% true" are not a third option. Why? Because each such description has an equivalent binary description. For example, the equivalent of "50% true" is "false", the equivalent of "100% true" is "true" and so on.

As I said to you in a different thread, one and the same portion of reality can be accurately described in more than one way. Truth values are no exception.

Imagine a drawer with 4 balls in it. Imagine that two of those are black and two are white. What's the truth value of the statement "All balls in that drawer are black"? It's "false" in binary language and "50% true" in non-binary centenary language. It's not either / or. Both descriptions are accurate.
There are many options to claim what is reality [true or false] of a proposition, it depends the human-based FSK one is adopting.

In your 4 balls example, each statement is true or false depending on its specific human based FSK i.e. [binary or non-binary] and the stipulated or implied conditions.

Because it is human-based, it follows, the resultant conclusion of the reality cannot be mind-independent.

Since the grounds to "A=A" emerged from consensus [minds], this Law of Logic, i.e. "A=A" cannot be absolutely mind independent.

Btw, all the Laws of Classical Logic emerged from human biology via the evolutionary processes.
You're confusing the map with the territory.

You're confusing beliefs that the law of identity is a real law with the law of identity itself.

The law of identity is NOT a belief. It is NOT a concept. It is NOT something inside your mind. It's NOT a biological entity at all.
What is then, by itself, without any qualification to a FSK?
There is no way you can prove it is real at all, it is only your speculation and a thought.
You need a paradigm shift in your thinking to understand greater refine truths.
Your clinging to your current dogmatic philosophical thinking is based on proto, primal, relatively crude reasonings.
Try to avoid talking about other people as much as possible. Stick to discussing ideas instead.

Here's a question for you:

Do you think it's possible for a thing to be non-identical to itself?

And before you respond to that question, I just want to remind you that "A = A" is NOT saying that physical objects do not constantly change. I have to remind people of that because a lot of people have trouble understanding what "A = A" actually means.
A real thing is a unique thing, how can anything be identical to it?

What you are engaging in with words and meanings within a human-based linguistic FSK.
You just cannot claim "A=A" in the absolute sense as if you are God, without qualifying the FSK, in this case a linguistic FSK you are adopting.

In the case of "A=A" you must qualify you are adopting the human-based classical-logic FSK and the linguistic-FSK.
Whatever the resultant reality referred to cannot be mind-independent.

If I am adopting the Fuzzy-ParaConsistent-logic-FSK where p and not-p can be accepted at the same time, why should I accept "A=A"?
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic
    A paraconsistent logic is an attempt at a logical system to deal with contradictions in a discriminating way. Alternatively, paraconsistent logic is the subfield of logic that is concerned with studying and developing "inconsistency-tolerant" systems of logic which reject the principle of explosion.
In the rigoristic sense, you must qualify your FSK and contexts.
You are not a God in insisting your way is absolute.
Post Reply